Salvation outside the church

[DustinsDad]

…Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, admittedly the greatest minds of Greece came up with a very primitive concept of god - the god of the natural law.

And that proves my point - that the moral precept of the First Commandment is in the Natural Law, these pre-Christian philosophers, in searching for the Truth, in seeking God, were actually demonstrating this moral precept by their search because they were still ignorant of Divine Revelation. Such pagains, once exposed to Divine Revelation, by the same moral precept, are then obligated to accept the One True God.

…The Israelites had divine Revelation, saw the Red Sea part, ate manna in the desert, and yet, they still fell into idolatry.

Yep, and by doing so they sinned. They violated both the Natural Law and that same Natural Law as articulated by God Himself in the First Commandment. They were more culpable for this because they should have known better. To them given much much is expected.

Ah but who knows, perhaps they were just following their conscience…

DD

 

[DustinsDad]

You’re not going to do that ‘put it in context’ thing…

Your disdain for context is duly noted.

DD

 

[DustinsDad]

…That is why the informed conscience thrumps anything you got.

An informed conscience? You bet - that’s what I’ve been saying all along, and contrary to what you’ve been saying. You’ve been purposely leaving out the “informed” part of it. You know - in the CCC on conscience, it’s that “context thing” you want no part of.

And of course, an informed conscience is one that is in accord with Catholic Truth…not one opposed to it.

…The Pope tells us one thing, and a SSPX believes something else. What is he supposed to do? Follow his conscience. You will defend that til death.

Huh? What in the world is that supposed to mean?

DD

 

[DustinsDad]

Here’s a good article that relates to the present rabbit hole:

The Primacy of Conscience: Sola Conscientia?

 

[mgrfin]

And that proves my point - that the moral precept of the First Commandment is in the Natural Law, these pre-Christian philosophers, in searching for the Truth, in seeking God, were actually demonstrating this moral precept by their search because they were still ignorant of Divine Revelation. Such pagains, once exposed to Divine Revelation, by the same moral precept, are then obligated to accept the One True God.

Yep, and by doing so they sinned. They violated both the Natural Law and that same Natural Law as articulated by God Himself in the First Commandment. They were more culpable for this because they should have known better. To them given much much is expected.

Ah but who knows, perhaps they were just following their conscience…

DD

You’ve never admitted once when you were wrong. I expect that, however. It is the reason why we continue to pray for you, and wish you every good from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

An informed conscience? You bet - that’s what I’ve been saying all along, and contrary to what you’ve been saying. You’ve been purposely leaving out the “informed” part of it. You know - in the CCC on conscience, it’s that “context thing” you want no part of.

And of course, an informed conscience is one that is in accord with Catholic Truth…not one opposed to it.

Huh? What in the world is that supposed to mean?

DD

It is pretty simple. SSPX believe what their conscience tells them, even though on the other side is the Infallible, Solemn, Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Church telling them what is the truth…

In charity, you remain in our prayers.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

It is pretty simple. SSPX believe what their conscience tells them, even though on the other side is the Infallible, Solemn, Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Church telling them what is the truth…

In charity, you remain in our prayers.

peace

Nice rabbit hole over there. That’s almost relevant to the discussion.

Ah, a new rabbit hole introduced is always a sign that “someone” knows they’ve been proven in error. Again.

Does someone need a hug?

DD

 

[catharina]

Nice rabbit hole over there. That’s almost relevant to the discussion.

Ah, a new rabbit hole introduced is always a sign that “someone” knows they’ve been proven in error. Again.

Does someone need a hug?

DD

Why the sarcasm? You talk to your family that way? It’s getting really disgusting. Moral precept (your term) is not a Ten Commandment. So simple. God revealed the Ten Commandments - to Moses. They had to be REVEALED. A moral precept is not identical to a Revealed Truth.

 

[fix]

I think that the Natural Law is best summarized by Christ’s commandments to love God and to love one another. It’s a little more than “do good, avoid evil.” I think it is also a little more than do unto others. The command to love God is part of the natural law, I think, but it is perhaps better summarized as ‘recognize that there is something beyond yourself, that is greater than you are’. So some cultures have responded imperfectly to this law by worshipping false gods or by worshiping ideals.

But your base point I agree with strongly. I think that many people toss things into “Natural Law” that are more accurately described as "derived from Natural Law principles. There is a big difference. The more I look at it, the more I am convinced that the Natural Law only encompasses a very small set of very broad rules, i.e. love God, and love one another.

We also have revelation, which adds more rules and substance to the Natural Law, but we must remember that even these rules must be interpreted in light of the first two. This is where the Decalogue fits, along with a very few other things.

Everything else is the result of reasoning from those principles. Like all products of human reason, these laws can be imperfect or flat-out wrong. Many very bad laws that we now reject were said to be “Natural Law” at one time.

I think that those are all consistent with what I said above. The Card. Ratzinger document you quote from quotes in turn from Irenaeus for the proposition that the Decalogue is a rationale and reasoned ethical code derived from the Natural Law and given to help man live in accord with Natural Law. As a “preparation for friendship with God and justice towards our neighbour.” The morality that is drawn from the Decalogue is similarly a rationale construct, now one more setp away from Natural Law.

As we develop more detailed rules, we naturally take more steps from the source. At some point, we need to check our backtrail and make sure we have not strayed from first principles.

Some people refer to all rules along these steps informally as “Natural Law,” but they are merely derived from, or reasoned from Natural Law.

This sums it up well:

**[

2071

](http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3EpenWindow%28%27cr/2071.htm%27%29**

The commandments of the Decalogue, although accessible to reason alone, have been revealed. To attain a complete and certain understanding of the requirements of the natural law, sinful humanity needed this revelation:

A full explanation of the commandments of the Decalogue became necessary in the state of sin because the light of reason was obscured and the will had gone astray.32

They were revealed, but were there from the start.

 

[fix]

I repeat what is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”.

Can you respond directly to that, rather than an appeal to some emotional argument?

You are in our prayers.

peace

Objectively such a person is wrong. Subjective culpability will vary.

 

[stmaria]

I repeat what is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”.

Can you respond directly to that, rather than an appeal to some emotional argument?

You are in our prayers.

peace

mgrfin, you have a degree in theology, right? It seems to me your idea of following one’s conscience is distorted.
If your conscience is in error do you have the divine right to follow it?

 

[DustinsDad]

Why the sarcasm?

I’m serious. Folks proven wrong on discussion boards often throw up a plethora of “rabbit holes”…an attempt to send the discussion off in other directions to draw attention away from their error. It’s been going on in this thread since day one. Your post here is a fine example.

Moral precept (your term) is not a Ten Commandment…A moral precept is not identical to a Revealed Truth.

Strawman. Neither of the above is my argument. Read more carefully or quit being disingenuous.

God revealed the Ten Commandments - to Moses.

Of course.
(CCC 1961) God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose Israel for himself to be his people and revealed his Law to them, thus preparing for the coming of Christ. The Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to reason. These are stated and authenticated within the covenant of salvation.

(CCC 1962) The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. **The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God’s call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

**God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.

DD

 

[catharina]

I’m serious. Folks proven wrong on discussion boards often throw up a plethora of “rabbit holes”…an attempt to send the discussion off in other directions to draw attention away from their error. It’s been going on in this thread since day one. .

EXCUSE ME? ~ Does someone need a hug? ~ That’s serious and not disingenuous? Go find a mirror. Gaze and reflect.

 

[rinnie]

lets go back to the basics. ccc 153 When Peter confessed that Jesus if the Christ, the son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come from flesh and blood, but from my father in heaven. Faith is a gift of GOD A SUPERNATURAL VIRTUE INFUSED BY HIM. Before this faith can be exercised man must have the grace of GOD to MOVE and ASSIST him. he must have the INTERIOR helps of the HOLY SPIRIT who moves the heart and converts it to GOD. WHO opens the MIND and makes it EASY for ALL to accept and BELIEVE THE TRUTH. that is why Jesus left the Church to Peter, We can argue all year until that grace comes to a person they will never understand. Thats all i can say

 

[SemperFidelis]

He must follow his conscience.

So, if my conscience is telling me I need to murder my friend, I should follow it?

That probably sets the EENS people in a tizzy.

No, that sets the Catholic people in a tizzy.

Jimmy Cricket said the same thing.

Ah yes, Jimmy Cricket, the infallible judge of truth…

 

[SemperFidelis]

Ah, a new rabbit hole introduced is always a sign that “someone” knows they’ve been proven in error. Again.

You are absolutely right. He’s been proven wrong more times on this thread than I care to count. He’s also “rabbit holed” on this thread more times than I care to count, hence why we’ve covered almost every aspect of Catholic teaching on this one thread alone. You and SFD are going to have to let me on your wagon, it is just too hard to resist.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Oh, I thought you were a Feeneyite, or ‘vacant seat’, person, or a follower of the schismatic sect following Lefebreve?

Your McCarthy-like tendencies are appalling. You see Feeneyites, Sedevacantists, and “Lefebrvrites” (whatever that is) all around you, when only a couple people have implied, let alone stated that they hold to such views. I’ve seen you do this countless times, even to me. Chill out, Joseph.

 

[Walking_Home]

EXCUSE ME? ~ Does someone need a hug? ~ That’s serious and not disingenuous? Go find a mirror. Gaze and reflect.

Quote=catharina
Why the sarcasm? You talk to your family that way? It’s getting really disgusting.

---

Do you catharina --talk to your family that way. A pot should not be looking around – finding ways to call another black.

 

[Just_a_Thought]

Please prove that this is an infallible statement:

1. about faith and morals
2. spoken ex cathedra
3. intended to define de fide definita by such words as : “by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that …”
4. that it was known and received as such

We are all too anxious to quote every encyclical, apostolic letter, audience of the Holy Father as an infallible statement. Amazingly there have been few over the life of the Church. If it is a defide statement, you are going to have to prove it.

peace

In Chapter III of Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I reiterates infallible dogmas that the Magisterium must be followed even when it doesn’t act infallibly.

You can’t bind and loose dogmas - they are unchangeable, eternally bound never to be loosed - but the Lord gave Peter authority to “bind and loose.” The pope’s ordinary, universal authority is a much clearer, more traditionally recognized part of what Christ entrusted to Peter than his infallible authority.

This newfangled idea that “if it isn’t infallible, it might be erroneous and therefore we don’t necessarily have to follow it” is heresy, completely contrary to both Scripture and the constant tradition of 20 centuries of Catholicism. So can we dismiss the tired and nonsensical accusation of “papolatry”?

 

[mgrfin]

Nice rabbit hole over there. That’s almost relevant to the discussion.

Ah, a new rabbit hole introduced is always a sign that “someone” knows they’ve been proven in error. Again.

Does someone need a hug?DD

YOU DO! FORUM ADMINISTRATORS HAVE BANNED ALL SEDEVACANTIST TOPICS FROM CATHOLIC FORUMS.

PEACE